In my honest opinion, I think atheists have nothing to lose. Because if a god created us, and gave us the personality we have, then why do we value proof and evidence over blind faith? Whose fault is it that atheists do not believe in what can not be proven, when all a god would have to do is show us evidence of his existence? So even if a god created us, he must have created our ability to reason out his existence as well right?
Now, may I point out that I think your argument is good, and I am not saying that the theistic perspective I wish to outline below refutes it or is superior in any way, but I just wish to air the theistic perspective in a relatively coherent way in comparison to some of the ways it is aired from my experience of other forums:
The theistic perspective of what you are saying is that religious faith occurs when you "let go" of the purely scientific, and instead rely on faith. In a sense, God would view it as a personal challenge to you to decrease your reliance on facts and evidence and instead proceed with reliance on a more spiritual kind of affirmation.
Now, I can never emphasise this enough: This does not mean (rather by this, I personally do not mean) flying in the face of evidence. I would never dream of calling someone who completely disbelieves evolution in favour of fundamentalist creationism anything but unreasonable. It means taking the facts as far as they will take you, recognise their limits (and by that I mean the more fundamental (eg. purposive) limits as opposed to areas science has simply not yet explored) and proceed from there.
By that I mean science will never even attempt the answers of why, and will find itself limited as to the ultimate 'how?'. If we take a purely scientific view, we simply don't attempt to answer these questions, and sit there and shoot down those who try to form conclusions on the other side of the scientific border.
The purely scientific view doesn't really have much grounds of doing so beyond the contradictions that people make trying to reach an understanding beyond that point. There are no real fundamental reasons for disbelief of those who explore that area, atheists admit this when they say that they cannot say it is wrong, just that it appears hugely improbable.
All that reasonable theists do is have a shot at that which is beyond sciences capacity. That to me is the reasonable extent of religious faith. It is letting go of the scientific framework where it doesn't belong, and having a look around. To return from my rather convoluted point, the theistic explanation of your atheism would be that it is a personal challenge to let go of whatever keeps you from exploring beyond the realms of science, be it pride or just sheer lack of faith.
